[jillybean]

---

2♦ is art. gf

[mr1303]

Didn't a bloke called Bob come up with a rule for this situation?

I've shown 4-6 in spades and diamonds (presumably), so I can't have that much of a club stop.

[Vampyr]

What would 3♣ instead of 3♦ have shown?

[Mbodell]

3nt seems 100% clear.

[mcphee]

Frankly I do not see 3NT as such a clear cut call, my diamonds are slow and my clubs are not outstanding. We might play best in a suit and H does not look to be so terrible, and possible 4/3 S fit may be right as well. If I were to bid S now it should express some doubt about NT, if I felt that would not be sensible with this partner I would raise H.

[ggwhiz]

mcphee, on 2014-February-02, 09:06, said:

Frankly I do not see 3NT as such a clear cut call, my diamonds are slow and my clubs are not outstanding. We might play best in a suit and H does not look to be so terrible, and possible 4/3 S fit may be right as well. If I were to bid S now it should express some doubt about NT, if I felt that would not be sensible with this partner I would raise H.

I agree in principle with the 3♠ bid but would never raise hearts in case partner has slam ambitions that are not in diamonds. 3nt should get that message across too and have a play if I bid it or be cold if partner does over 3♠.

My regular partnership has a strong tendency to open 1♠ with 5-6 in these suits so I have a comfort level that others may not.

[gszes]

Majors NT minors but there are some hands where big distribution needs to

be shown before NT. The bidding here is fine to this point but now we need

to continue with 3s vs 3n. IMO 3N should be reserved for what should at

least looks like 2 club stops. The 3s bid should let p know you have something

in clubs to make NT possible but you have your doubts.

if your partnership open 1d with these types of hands you would have continued

with 2s over 2d so 3s is either a search for NT or heart support and a cue bid

(which you would reveal if p bids 3n by bidding 4h).

There are plenty of hands where we may be forced to bud 3n with only 1 stop, we might

as well take advantage of bidding space when we have it to show the difference.

[mikeh]

4♥

KQ tight in clubs is not a great holding for notrump should we be unable to run a red suit with no losers. Meanwhile, if partner has slam ambitions, my heart J is a very useful card. Bear in mind that I have 4♣ and 4♦ available as cuebids in support of hearts, and didn't choose them, so 4♥ is a regressive move, which seems right to me. Partner can go slamming if he qwants, and in that case I have a great hand in context, after limiting it via 4♥

[jillybean]

Vampyr, on 2014-February-02, 01:42, said:

What would 3♣ instead of 3♦ have shown?

clubs 4153 type hand

[jillybean]

Here is the full hand

---

Unimaginative bidding by South (me)

[kenberg]

I was about to say 4♥ but I see others are before me. I see it this way: If pard has something like KQTxxx in hearts that means I have five heart tricks and I can reach them. That accounts for five of his points. If he has the king of spades we have three spade tricks and a developing club trick. Maybe he has Lxx. Of course I don't know that he has these cards but he is supposed to have something. I have given him nine good points and we have a decent play for the contract.

This approach can and has gone wrong but so can bidding 3NT. I go with 4♥.

Oops, now even the hand is up. But I wrote this first.

[kenberg]

If it's any comfort, I am not so sure I would have left this in 3NT if I held the heart hand. Which suit is supposed to be running? Back to your hand for a moment. (Oops. Something I misread/misthought deleted here. )

These are tricky. With your actual hand I choose 4♥ not 3NT but with the opposite hand I think I also opt for 4♥. Seven card suits, especially in the majors, are trump.

[ArtK78]

I don't think that 3NT is terrible. As has been stated previously, South cannot hold more than 3 cards in clubs (and could easily have 2) so his club stopper cannot be that great. Furthermore, if South's club stopper were great, South might have bid 2NT rather than 3♦.

It is not unreasonable to bid 4♥ on the South hand. But I would not look to harshly at 3NT. After all, South does have a club stopper. And the auction screams for someone to bid 3NT if they hold a club stopper.

In any event, North should bid 4♥ over 3NT.

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2014-February-02, 11:28, said:

clubs 4153 type hand

So if this auction denies three clubs, 3NT shows just a single club stopper, giving partner the chance to pass with eg Jxx?

[Flem72]

If this is 2/1 w/ XYZ, as I prefer to play it, 4H by N after 3D or 3H over 1S: Both are slam invitational. The latter is a Very Good Suit, and most of the time a very distributional, control-rich hand, the former a long "normal" suit, HCPs. The Hs are about 1/2 a card away from VGS because there could easily be 2 losers opposite a small stiff. I've told my story, and partner has a call.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2014-February-02, 11:32, said:

Here is the full hand

---

Unimaginative bidding by South (me)

Not raising on a stiff is a common mistake by non-experts. So is bidding 3N. Far too many players have been misled by 'Hamman's Rule'. Hamman's Rule, which suggests bidding 3N with any excuse, isn't a rule about avoiding major suit games! It is a rule about being aggressive in borderline situations, in which the 9 trick game is the most plausible game contract, not about preferring notrump over a major suit. As is often the case, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, when one doesn't understand the context....that isn't a shot at you, since you didn't invoke the rule, but you will see that others have in this thread.

Be that as it may, N passing was far from clear. However, if you held 4=0=6=3 shape, with no aces, 4♥ was almost always down and 3N would usually have play.

[cherdano]

This hand is a great example for the cost playing XYZ instead of 4th suit forcing.
In the given auction, South has a difficult bid over 3♥ - how else was North supposed to bid a game-forcing hand with ♥AQxxxx and ♣Jxx? Now of course ♣Jxx (or Axx) is a magical holding to hope for, but also remember that we can still easily have a doubleton heart. We might even have ♥Kx unless we have discussed with partner that we can bid 2♥ with that!
Don't get me wrong, I agree with Mike that South should raise to 4♥, but it is close, and it could easily lead to the wrong contract.

Compare that to an auction starting with 2♣ as game force:
2C-2D
2H-?
Now we can raise with any doubleton. On our actual hand we can bid 2N. If partner had the magical ♣Jxx he could raise to 3N, with other holdings he might express doubt with 3♣, and with his actual hand he has an easy 3♥ bid - over which we have a really easy 4♥ raise.

Of course, XYZers get an important inference from North's failure to bid 3♥ directly over 1♠ - but only if we have discussed exactly what kind of hand types this bid includes!

[Vampyr]

cherdano, on 2014-February-02, 13:59, said:

This hand is a great example for the cost playing XYZ instead of 4th suit forcing.

......

Of course, XYZers get an important inference from North's failure to bid 3♥ directly over 1♠ - but only if we have discussed exactly what kind of hand types this bid includes!

What about the inference, certainty perhaps, that South's 2♦ denied a 3-card club holding? This seems like important information that North didn't consider during the auction.

[chasetb]

I have to blame North, but not quite for the reason you think. I follow Inquiry's XYZ Convention, and in his document 2♦ shows a more balanced hand while a direct jump to 3♥ shows a GF with 7+ Hearts, a pretty darn good suit, and usually shortness in the 4th suit. If South then bids 3NT, it's likely that 3NT is the only place to play it (on this hand, South would raise to 4♥). As it stands, I think North has to drive to 4♥ since South is very likely to not have 3 Clubs. Once 3♥ was bid, South has to bid 3NT because of the stopper and North possibly having 3-4 Clubs.

[kenberg]

A partner wants to play XYZ and so this interests me. I gather with the invitational 6 card suit the artificial bid is 2♣ and then a bid of 3♥, l;eaving us with two ways to bid a forcing 3♥, either by going through 2♦ or by a direct 3♥.

In particular, as a non-XYZ player, these inferences did not occur to me. I'm not so much jumping ship from the 4♥ bidders, I am just saying that if this convention supplied more inferences, my choice was made without knowing them.